That to me is not relevant because FM is ultimately a computer game designed for the end user, a product. A game reviewer does not need to be a programmer, a film critic does not need to be a cinematographer or actor, a food critic does not need to be a chef. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But a food critic needs to understand food, have a well-developed palate.

A film reviewer benefits from knowing film history.

And a game reviewer benefits from knowing something of the industry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The third sentence is not analogous to the first to. Rather, the game reviewer should have vast gaming experiences so that they have other games to compare FM with. That requirement seems to be fulfilled by the poster in question considering his mentioning of LMA Manager, FIFA, early Championship Manager games etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The third sentence is entirely analogous.

Analogous to "He just needs to have vast gaming experience" would be "He just needs to have eaten lots" or "He just needs to have watched a lot of films"! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The distinction you're trying to blur semantically is between expertise in making the final product and expertise in appreciating the final product. My claim is that only the latter is needed for reaching an informed assessment of the product.

His claim is that SI's direction is lazy, not that SI are made up of lazy individuals. The claim is based on his judgment of their product throughout the years, which I think is a fair basis for making the judgment.

Besides, a neutral observer's word is far more credible than that of a biased former insider. Of course if you are mates with SI you're going to utter nothing but praise for them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firstly, I'm not a "former insider" and I wouldn't say I'm "mates" with them.

Secondly, how do you know he's neutral? I think very few people are truly neutral.

I do some stuff with them on a voluntary basis as a researcher and a tester. I am a long way from offering nothing but praise, I am incredibly critical, more so than most who post here. The difference is my criticism is balanced and informed (and these days rarely takes place on this forum).

I know full well what his claim is. And I maintain it's rubbish, he doesn't know what he's talking about, and that anyone who has spent time at SI Towers would refute the assertion they were, by any definition, lazy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's condescending and wrong to say "you have no idea what you're talking about"; to sort of deny someone's right to have an opinion. He is a customer, the sort of person SI relies on to make a living. Of course the opinions of people like the the poster in question have implications for SI and should be taken on board. Personally I wouldn't go so far to say that SI are taking a lazy direction. But I think they have severe blind spots and this thread is basically for raising some of those blind spots.

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The distinction you're trying to blur semantically is between expertise in making the final product and expertise in appreciating the final product. My claim is that only the latter is needed for reaching an informed assessment of the product. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not entirely true, not knowing what is possible/feasible/viable only allows for an uninformed assessment of the product.

You may have real life expertise of (in this case football) but unless you actually know how realistically that can be made into a PC game by having some knowledge of the industries financing and technological capabilities your critcism can hardly be informed.

I should have learnt a long time ago that once semantics and/or analogies appear in a thread, it has passed its sell by date

That to me is not relevant because FM is ultimately a computer game designed for the end user, a product. A game reviewer does not need to be a programmer, a film critic does not need to be a cinematographer or actor, a food critic does not need to be a chef. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But a food critic needs to understand food, have a well-developed palate.

A film reviewer benefits from knowing film history.

And a game reviewer benefits from knowing something of the industry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The third sentence is not analogous to the first to. Rather, the game reviewer should have vast gaming experiences so that they have other games to compare FM with. That requirement seems to be fulfilled by the poster in question considering his mentioning of LMA Manager, FIFA, early Championship Manager games etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The third sentence is entirely analogous.

Analogous to "He just needs to have vast gaming experience" would be "He just needs to have eaten lots" or "He just needs to have watched a lot of films"! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The distinction you're trying to blur semantically is between expertise in making the final product and expertise in appreciating the final product. My claim is that only the latter is needed for reaching an informed assessment of the product. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm - but if you read my original quote in context, I was discussing an assessment of the process of making the final product, not an assessment of the product itself:

His claim is that SI's direction is lazy, not that SI are made up of lazy individuals. The claim is based on his judgment of their product throughout the years, which I think is a fair basis for making the judgment.

Besides, a neutral observer's word is far more credible than that of a biased former insider. Of course if you are mates with SI you're going to utter nothing but praise for them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The analogy to a film critic or a food critic is completely moot - a food critic critiques the end product, not the organization and work ethic of the kitchen.

My point is entirely that - for critiquing SI's development, internal mistakes, etc, requires a

For him to go on to

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Originally posted by morgantjg:

The developers are more than happy to pump out the same game every year and take the money. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

in the next sentence is simply indefensible.

Its the same as saying "All lawyers are greedy bloodsuckers who will stab you in the back", which terribly maligns every lawyer who genuinely has his or her clients' best interests at heart, or any form of asserting that members of a specific ethnicity are lazy - which we wouldn't tolerate, nor should we when applied with a broad brush to the organization.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It's actually more analogous to saying that a certain law firm is greedy on the basis that they continually overcharge (compared to other law firms) for the same services because of their top tier reputation. I mean the main product line for SI is the FM series so it's fair to judge SI (and SI alone rather than "all game companies") based on that.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hmm - that does seem like a more fair analogy than any that precede it.

But, its not just "top tier reputation" that SI have in their corner: its the research team, the framework to develop on, and the expertise in developing these types of games.

If you feel that SI are resting on their laurels, and therefore easy pickings you're welcome to found a company to challenge them.. but sports management is a tough niche to break into, and I think it would take you several years and a large amount of cash to put up a product that would rival FM.

Hmm - that does seem like a more fair analogy than any that precede it.

But, its not just "top tier reputation" that SI have in their corner: its the research team, the framework to develop on, and the expertise in developing these types of games.

If you feel that SI are resting on their laurels, and therefore easy pickings you're welcome to found a company to challenge them.. but sports management is a tough niche to break into, and I think it would take you several years and a large amount of cash to put up a product that would rival FM.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I might consider that after completing uni and after the end of a legal or economist career . Seriously though I just hope that the thread might be the straw or one of the straws that influences SI's development of FM09 or future version. Mixed opinions have been expressed in the thread but I honestly think that many didn't bother because of the potential flaming and "you have no idea what you're talking about" responses they will face.

If you're going to fanboy can you at least give some constructive reasons to back up a "no". I mean the onus is surely on the game to constantly improve rather than remain static.

Honestly there are so many things that can be improved to make the game more realistic and involving. The training module should be more integrated with matchday tactical module so that a particular tactic or pressing style you worked on in training can be pulled off during the match. These are fundamental aspects necessary for a realistic simulation, not just cosmetic changes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why make a perfect game when you can improve it just a little and sell it every year to monkeys? isnÂ´t it that right Miles Jacobson.

Seriously though I just hope that the thread might be the straw or one of the straws that influences SI's development of FM09 or future version. Mixed opinions have been expressed in the thread but I honestly think that many didn't bother because of the potential flaming and "you have no idea what you're talking about" responses they will face.

Cheers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suspect you'll get more traction towards that goal - and more focused discussion with less flaming - with more specific criticisms of specific modules.

For example, I'd be shocked if SI weren't taking on board the criticism from Ched's Critique of Board Confidence and planning to address almost every point - though I doubt much in that thread is "news" to them, exactly.

In fact, when I look back at it, your initial post has some very specific criticisms - and please forgive my quoting them:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The current slider tactical system has reached its development potential. It needs to be replaced by something more flexible and realistic. There should more tactical variables but fewer ordinal options within each variable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The game can also be vastly improved by introducing a set piece and set play designer. It could do with more options to set up combinations between specific players in a tactical system. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think SI are focusing too heavily on recreating "realistic" score lines and league tables for the ai; on "tweaking" the current framework to the nth degree of realism. However I think so long as the current tactical module remains unchanged, that nth degree cannot be achieved because the match engine is limited in its potential. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Each of those three points, by itself, could have sparked a very good thread - useful discussion and debate with a resultant output that I think would have had more chance of influencing SI's development of future versions.

Unfortunately, a lot of people went off track on the thread title - "Is it time for an all new version of the game to be released, and not just another data update and a couple of new cosmetic features?"

I think a lot of people zeroed in on the words bolded, and much of the discussion missed your subsequent points.

An "all new version"?

Not really gonna happen, and we all know it isn't - well except for the trolls and diehards like morgantjg .

As discussed earlier, we're in a modular development world, and what we're going to see is things like what we've seen in the past three or four versions:

- the "training" module ripped out and replaced

- the "team talks" module added, then refined over several versions

- the "board confidence" module ripped out and replaced with something more detailed (which I expect should be refined over the next several versions).

Its also not what you were talking about: at most, what I hear from your original post is "a new tactics module".

In fact, I suspect it might be worth starting your thread again with that as the title, and some specifics about what you'd like to see in replacement.

I bet you'd have a totally different thread with the title "What would you want to see if SI rewrote the tactics module?"

Cheers - and btw, well done on getting us back out of the flame-war we'd stumbled into for 30 posts.